If you where to change the United States Goverment (or any other), to whatever you wanted, how would it look?

Example: Neo-Liberal/Fascist-Communist Goverment.
And Reason: Because according to my idealogy, this is a dream state.

And please, no bashing, or to obvious negative references

Hmm, whatever I wanted without regard to whether or not it's possible?

Ok, I'll offer two. One that's not possible and one that is:

Not possible, but I'd like it --

A monarchy headed by an immortal incorruptible and of course extremely intelligent and wise libertarian.

Because such a government would not be subject to erosion of our liberties. Not possible of course because no such monarch exists or could exist, short of divinity.

More reasonable --

Our present form of govenment, but with the Constitution rewritten to be as impossible to misinpret as we could manage (i.e., no 'general welfare clause", no "elastic clause, and no ambiguous language), and with government limited to the functions specifically authorized by the Constitution, which would mean probably no bigger than 10% of its present size.

Because that's what our Founders intended us to have, and it worked well until it was gradually eroded by a long succession of disastrous Supreme Court decisions.

What about a Fascist Goverment?

Would'nt feel better to have someone whom thought for you?

Surely you are joking. Please tell me that you are joking.

I agree with Izdaari entirely. I would definitely decrease the size and scope of the federal government and amend the constitution to reflect that. I would have the majority of control left in the hands of the states, thus if you didn't like some of the policies or social programs of one state, you had 49 options of where to move. This of course is within the bounds of equality for all under the law. I don't mean states rights in the sense that some people think....segregation, etc....

No i am not, i am All for a Fascist goverment.

Oh, you mean an "Emperor and his Dark Lord of the Sith" type government, right? One that self-destructs and implodes in on itself from corruption, narcissism and extreme paranoia. One that brutalizes it's people and reduces them down to a statistic and automaton, subject to the whim of the government?

That sounds familiar.

No, Now your talking about a Goverment based on Democracy


My Goverment would be One Man, One Vote policy. Dictator is the Man, and its His vote. The general population do not know whats good for them. Just look at the world. We need one strong leader.

You're suggesting an AntiChrist.

There are too many cultures and opinions to be under a one person dictatorship.


ABSOLUTE POWER, CORRUPTS ABSOLUTLY.

No they don't.

My Dad would........

Seriously, think about it, One man, No Worrys.

A Communist state, having a Fascist Goverment.

It's failsafe

Your dreamstate would be a nightmare.

That's what Hitler, Stalin and Lenin thought.

My Ideal gov't would be similar to Izdari's but I would prefer a republic in which those who follow the constitution would be elected by the people.

CP

I agree with Conservpat and Izdaari:

A more clearly defined inclusive Constitution and a pure Republic of the people.

My Goverment would not be like Hitlers, Stalin ad Lenin. As i said, a Fascist GOVERMENT, using a COMMUNIST society, PURELY.

Everyone would be happy, have food in belly, and no need to worry.

And like I said earlier, Absolute power, corrupts absolutely. What one person would you trust with the lives of humanity? If we're talking fantasy, yes, it would be ideal. A benevolent ruler and his faithful and devoted subjects and everyone lives happily ever after. But that's not reality. People have animosity and greed, fear and deep seeded heritages and cultural values that cannot be so easily thrown aside. And if they were forced to do so, wouldn't that make them unhappy? Free will is what makes mankind unique.

Mine: laissez-faire; the government would only worry about police and fire and roads and other stuff that could not logically be done by private companies.

In a way, Rootis and I are on the same wavelength: I'm all for giving absolute power to one leader -- providing we have a leader who can be trusted with it, is wise enough to know when not to use it, and is immortal so we don't have to worry about him/her being replaced by someone less perfect. That was in fact my first preference, but for the fact that no such person (excluding divine beings) exists or could exist.

Since all human beings are corruptible, and the more power they have, the more corrupt they become, the best we can do is limit the impact of their corruption by limiting the power they can exercise to the minimum necessary. That's why in the real world I favor a limited constitutional republic as the best form of government.

How do you know?
Is it not a bit narrow minded to say that?

Hitler, Mussolini, Hussien. Three examples. Anyway, it's a welll known, respectable and common sense saying. If there isn't a form of checks and balance, one person can become delusional and out of touch with reality, as history has shown.

I don't see the point of continuing this debate, personally.

So because there have not been anyone, there could'nt be one ?

So then, we never been to Space?
Never been on the moon?
And so forth.

Because i have not eaten a sandwich, i will never be able to do this.

Strange....

This is ridiculous and pointless and your rebuttal makes no sense. History shows that a dictatorship fails. History shows that man can go to the moon and space.

United States is more or less dictatorship, so far it has not "failed".

No. Bush would like for it to be a dictatorship, but fortunatly there is a thing called the Constitution. America is CLEARLY a democracy. You may not participate in the electorial process, but it does exist. It may have had a hiccup 3 years ago, but our nation is just fine as long as we keep our system of checks and balances.

I have my Moderator hat on halfway here. I realize this is Casual Conversation, but this really isn't going anywhere is it?
There are some possible threads that could be opened from some of the posts here, but right now it just seems like BillyJean and rootis are engaging in "I'm right......no, I'm right........"

Am I wrong?

Dontreadonme, yes, we are just bickering. Feel free to close this thread if you feel it useless. no hard feelings

You're right. I'll argue this untill the cows come home. It's a pointless debate anyway.

Ok I won't argue but I will weigh in on my ideal government.

The closest one to my ideal is the one we have now.

I am for Izdaari's 2nd option.

As individualism is extremely important to me, I would never survive under a Communist system.

Get rid of the political parties. Everyone in the political sector bashes each other because of political party offiliation and becauise of it, not much gets done. It may sound like something that isn't from a democracy, but if you strip away political parties and have debates without being in a political party, just whatever views of platforms on issues one has, then you have a better political atmosphere

So basically, you keep freedom of expression and opinion but just get rid of parties and party bashing.

Capitalism is inherently unequal. And much of the evils of human nature are brought out by inequality and injustice. Captalism is on a collision course for the worlds destruction.

Socalism is also flawed. If capitlaism is to be imposed from the top down, it will be violent, coercive and militaristic. The result would be a powerful militray dictatorship - tyranny is other words

The solution?

Anarcho-Syndicalism, it comes ot various guises. Socialist Guild, libertarian etc etc

Basically it is anti-captialist and anti authority. And before everyone gets over excited - this is not anarchy, as in disorder or chaos. Anarchism is highly organised.

There is a great FAQ here. Makes really interesting reading at least. Especially when you dip into some of the thinkers.

http://www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html

As the goal of the site is constructive debate, and this topic is admittedly serving to promote bickering, I don't see any reason it should remain open.

In the future, poorly formed topics such as these will be closed. Please review the Rules and the Survival Guide for clarification on the accepted means by which topics may be started.

Mike